There
was much opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in Japan, but I will
still attempt to evaluate the contents of the agreement.
The 31
rules of the agreement relax foreign investment restrictions on transmissions,
financing, retail and public enterprises, etc. More than a few items benefit
and are of importance to the Japanese economy.
Japan
relies on trade for survival and strategically should oppose increases in
foreign market transparency. It is safe to say that the government negotiated well.
Japan
decided to lift tariffs on 98% of 9,018 goods. I noticed that mass media,
politicians, and others argued that this will only make it difficult to protect
our weakened agricultural sector. Almost no mention was made of the beneficial
application that good food will be cheaper to import.
Analysis
of the TPP should consider not only GDP and producers, but also increased
consumer surplus. We can also find significant points on that topic in the TPP.
I was
concerned as to whether it prioritizes our national interests. Intellectual
society has been thrust into the midst of agricultural and industrial
societies, leaving Japan no choice but to subsist for the next 100 years on
intellectual property. At the onset of the creation of these international rules,
it seemed that the advantages of IP consumers would be diminished in favor of
protecting agricultural providers.
Of
course, the Japanese government also understands the situation. In this
agreement, despite the problems with agriculture and IP, they seem to have
endeavored to acquire benefits for many economic industry fields.
First
transmissions. Procedures and rulings were made transparent, and foreign
investment restrictions were relaxed. In e-commerce, it was determined that
tariffs would not be levied on digital content, and restrictions requiring
internal server establishment for online sales were removed.
In
financing, foreign investment restrictions were relaxed. Convenience store and
retail branch store restrictions were repealed. There are also large government
service and public enterprise market openings. These measures also cover
important industrial areas pertaining to the growth of Japan.
In
intellectual property, the created copyright system closely resembles that of
the US. It strengthens the rights of the holder (the provider). It reduces
consumer surplus. Even outside of business, from the perspective of a country
with excessive imports like Japan, this benefits the US.
However,
there are also good points in this section: the introduction of preventative
measures for Internet piracy, the prohibition of equipment that evades access
control, stronger control of bootleg editions, and recompense claim rights for
providers. These measures will
also have a great positive effect on Japan’s business world.
The
US could be expected to first attempt to demonstrate the merits by pushing for the creation of a treaty with participating
nations, but at the same time, I hope for us to pinpoint the demerits and
properly establish a domestic copyright system.